4 ms·

You say that as if 15 miles to the grocery store is an unavoidable fact of life. Grocery stores can and should be a lot closer to where people live. My grocery

by mcv 4y ago

You say that as if 15 miles to the grocery store is an unavoidable fact of life. Grocery stores can and should be a lot closer to where people live. My grocery store (in Amsterdam) is a 5 minute walk from my home. The big problem is that everything in the US has been designed around extreme car dependency, and more than that: extreme gas consumption. Because American cars are also much larger and heavier than they reasonably should be. Much about how American life seems to have been explicitly designed to maximise oil use and oil profits, even to the point where it stops making any kind of sense. So if there's a reason this can't change, then it's because oil companies hold far too much power over American politics and over the way people think. See also the recent conspiracy protests against "15 minute cities". The only meaningful reason I can think of why anyone would oppose that, is because it's going to hurt oil profits.

sieabahlpark 4y ago
[dead]
2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago
It's not just an American issue. Quite a few places in the world have similar situations (for various reasons). That problem is rarely a major issue, though; transportation in urban areas can be improved a lot and there's no reason to not implement different solutions for different circumstances, such as urban and rural areas. Fossil fuel-dependency _is not_ a problem we can solve with one single solution that fits everyone. The tricky part is getting someone else to take the first step -- there's going to be a lot of changes if we really want to do this, and most people seems firmly convinced that someone else should take the lead.
- mcv 4y ago
  There are indeed a lot of countries that have followed the American lead into car dependent urban design. But the issue is by far the worst in the US (and possibly Canada). Although SUVs exist elsewhere, they are far more common in the US. And in no other country do they get as ridiculously big as in the US. But you're absolutely right there's no single silver bullet. The problem is big and complex, and so is the solution. Smaller cars, less cars, electric cars, more bike infrastructure, better public transport, better designed cities. All of those things are part of the solution. Of course most of this is about urban areas; rural areas have very different requirements, and some of these solutions are irrelevant or infeasible there. Cities can do without cars, rural areas probably not, which is part of why electric cars are still important.
8fingerlouie 4y ago
> Grocery stores can and should be a lot closer to where people live. And how do groceries get to the vast network of local stores ? Besides that the US is a MUCH larger country than the NL, distances in the US are also much greater than anything you can imagine in Europe. There's a reason our US friends measure travel in time taken, and not distance travelled. The number of shops needed to "locally supply" everybody would be gigantic. The more stores that needs to be supplied, the more trucks needs to drive around supplying them, which leads to the question; what pollutes the most ? If humanity wants to make an improvement, we need much more public transportation, and not like today where it's "once per hour unless you live downtown", but in a way that doesn't make a 30 minute trip take 90 minutes. If we manage that, it doesn't really matter how far away the grocery store is. To give an impression of the size difference, the Netherlands covers an area of 16,160 sq mi (41,850 km2), and New York State alone covers 54,556 square miles (141,300 km2), and New York State is the 27th largest state in the US. > My grocery store (in Amsterdam) is a 5 minute walk And how many of those groceries are produced in Amsterdam ? Each an every one has been transported on one or more trucks to arrive in a convenient walking distance to you. I fully agree and understand that shops needs to be local, but they're not the most environmentally friendly solution.
- mcv 4y ago
  Groceries get to the shops by trucks. This is no different whether you have large or small shops. The only difference is: do you send all the trucks to the same shop or do you spread them over multiple shops. Amsterdam has no problem keeping its many, many smaller supermarkets well-stocked. Sure, it's a logistical challenge, but not one that cannot be solved. > Besides that the US is a MUCH larger country than the NL, distances in the US are also much greater than anything you can imagine in Europe. Of course, but how is that relevant? The fact that a country is larger doesn't mean that you have to make people travel all that distance. Imagine the EU merges into a single country at some point. That's not going to change the logistical situation around Amsterdam in any way. Logistics is already very international in the EU. > what pollutes the most? Yeah, what pollutes the most? Lots of trucks driving to a central big store, and then having people drive even more cars to that central store, or driving all those trucks to smaller local stores that people walk to? For the smaller shops, you probably don't need big trucks, but smaller ones, which does mean more of them, but still not remotely as many as the cars your saving. And some delivery trucks in Amsterdam are pretty light and electric already. > it doesn't really matter how far away the grocery store is. It still does. Mind you, more public transport is absolutely vital. I totally agree with that. And Amsterdam has pretty decent public transport (though biking is generally faster), but I still prefer local shops.
manfre 4y ago
> American cars are also much larger and heavier than they reasonably should be. To some extent, the larger vehicle size is a result of US vehicle safety standards.
- ttfkam 4y ago
  To some extent but not a large extent. SUVs tend to be less safe than their sedan counterparts. Worse on rollovers, worse on emergency handling, and much worse on visibility. You might survive a crash better in an SUV, but you're more likely to get into a crash with an SUV, canceling out any gains and quite possibly eroding even further into loss of safety. One of the only things that makes SUVs safer is their greater mass, which largely serves to make the road less safe for collisions with non-SUV drivers. With regard to vehicle size, I observed back in the 1990s when the SUV craze began that America was in a war of size attrition with itself. Even a Mini Cooper is quite survivable in a crash. Crumple zones and airbags are not just standard issue on gargantuan vehicles.
- mcv 4y ago
  From what I understand, it's the result of the lack of US vehicle safety standards. Or perhaps a loophole in them. Trucks have different safety standards than cars, and car manufacturers find the car safety standards annoying, so they started marketing trucks to consumers. They don't have to obey the same regulations as cars, and yet because they're light trucks, they don't require a commercial driving license. That's the loophole through which the US car industry managed to drive their entire industry.
988747 4y ago
[dead]

by mcv 4y ago

sieabahlpark 4y ago

[dead]

2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago

It's not just an American issue. Quite a few places in the world have similar situations (for various reasons). That problem is rarely a major issue, though; transportation in urban areas can be improved a lot and there's no reason to not implement different solutions for different circumstances, such as urban and rural areas. Fossil fuel-dependency _is not_ a problem we can solve with one single solution that fits everyone. The tricky part is getting someone else to take the first step -- there's going to be a lot of changes if we really want to do this, and most people seems firmly convinced that someone else should take the lead.

mcv 4y ago
There are indeed a lot of countries that have followed the American lead into car dependent urban design. But the issue is by far the worst in the US (and possibly Canada). Although SUVs exist elsewhere, they are far more common in the US. And in no other country do they get as ridiculously big as in the US. But you're absolutely right there's no single silver bullet. The problem is big and complex, and so is the solution. Smaller cars, less cars, electric cars, more bike infrastructure, better public transport, better designed cities. All of those things are part of the solution. Of course most of this is about urban areas; rural areas have very different requirements, and some of these solutions are irrelevant or infeasible there. Cities can do without cars, rural areas probably not, which is part of why electric cars are still important.

8fingerlouie 4y ago

> Grocery stores can and should be a lot closer to where people live. And how do groceries get to the vast network of local stores ? Besides that the US is a MUCH larger country than the NL, distances in the US are also much greater than anything you can imagine in Europe. There's a reason our US friends measure travel in time taken, and not distance travelled. The number of shops needed to "locally supply" everybody would be gigantic. The more stores that needs to be supplied, the more trucks needs to drive around supplying them, which leads to the question; what pollutes the most ? If humanity wants to make an improvement, we need much more public transportation, and not like today where it's "once per hour unless you live downtown", but in a way that doesn't make a 30 minute trip take 90 minutes. If we manage that, it doesn't really matter how far away the grocery store is. To give an impression of the size difference, the Netherlands covers an area of 16,160 sq mi (41,850 km2), and New York State alone covers 54,556 square miles (141,300 km2), and New York State is the 27th largest state in the US. > My grocery store (in Amsterdam) is a 5 minute walk And how many of those groceries are produced in Amsterdam ? Each an every one has been transported on one or more trucks to arrive in a convenient walking distance to you. I fully agree and understand that shops needs to be local, but they're not the most environmentally friendly solution.

mcv 4y ago
Groceries get to the shops by trucks. This is no different whether you have large or small shops. The only difference is: do you send all the trucks to the same shop or do you spread them over multiple shops. Amsterdam has no problem keeping its many, many smaller supermarkets well-stocked. Sure, it's a logistical challenge, but not one that cannot be solved. > Besides that the US is a MUCH larger country than the NL, distances in the US are also much greater than anything you can imagine in Europe. Of course, but how is that relevant? The fact that a country is larger doesn't mean that you have to make people travel all that distance. Imagine the EU merges into a single country at some point. That's not going to change the logistical situation around Amsterdam in any way. Logistics is already very international in the EU. > what pollutes the most? Yeah, what pollutes the most? Lots of trucks driving to a central big store, and then having people drive even more cars to that central store, or driving all those trucks to smaller local stores that people walk to? For the smaller shops, you probably don't need big trucks, but smaller ones, which does mean more of them, but still not remotely as many as the cars your saving. And some delivery trucks in Amsterdam are pretty light and electric already. > it doesn't really matter how far away the grocery store is. It still does. Mind you, more public transport is absolutely vital. I totally agree with that. And Amsterdam has pretty decent public transport (though biking is generally faster), but I still prefer local shops.

manfre 4y ago

> American cars are also much larger and heavier than they reasonably should be. To some extent, the larger vehicle size is a result of US vehicle safety standards.

ttfkam 4y ago
To some extent but not a large extent. SUVs tend to be less safe than their sedan counterparts. Worse on rollovers, worse on emergency handling, and much worse on visibility. You might survive a crash better in an SUV, but you're more likely to get into a crash with an SUV, canceling out any gains and quite possibly eroding even further into loss of safety. One of the only things that makes SUVs safer is their greater mass, which largely serves to make the road less safe for collisions with non-SUV drivers. With regard to vehicle size, I observed back in the 1990s when the SUV craze began that America was in a war of size attrition with itself. Even a Mini Cooper is quite survivable in a crash. Crumple zones and airbags are not just standard issue on gargantuan vehicles.
mcv 4y ago
From what I understand, it's the result of the lack of US vehicle safety standards. Or perhaps a loophole in them. Trucks have different safety standards than cars, and car manufacturers find the car safety standards annoying, so they started marketing trucks to consumers. They don't have to obey the same regulations as cars, and yet because they're light trucks, they don't require a commercial driving license. That's the loophole through which the US car industry managed to drive their entire industry.

988747 4y ago

[dead]